Report on Proposed Park System for the City of Dayton

Report on Proposed Park System for the City of Dayton, Ohio

 

Olmsted Brothers, Landscaper Architects

Brookline, Massachusetts

12th April, 1911

 

12th April, 1911

 

Mr. J. Sprigg McMahon, Secretary,

            Board of Park Commissioners, Dayton, Ohio.

Dear Sir:

            We take pleasure in submitting through your Board to the people of Dayton our report upon a scheme for a comprehensive system of parks and parkways for the City of Dayton.

            We find the city one of the most rapidly growing and one of the most prosperous of many in one of the most populous and prosperous states of the Union. In population Ohio is the fourth state and Dayton is the forty-third city in the Union. It has increased 36.6 per cent in ten years. There appear to be no unusual natural resources, the exploitation of which has caused this prosperity of Dayton. We must attribute it, therefore, to the intelligence and industry of its people. It is consequently not surprising, though very gratifying, to note the many evidence of a general desire for and appreciation of the usual physical utilities of a modern civilized municipality—the wide streets, the miles of excellent paving, the sewerage system and water supply, the street lighting, the numerous churches, the imposing handsome office buildings and the public library and other public buildings. Since the people of the city have thus, and in others ways, clearly manifested their desire to have the city well equipped for business and convenient and attractive for residence, and since they have spent much in desirable improvements, it will be aidful for them to consider some desiderata that are lacking and some things which could well be improved and extended. Among such desiderata it is our special function to advise upon the subject of parks and parkways.

            That cities should have parks is convincingly demonstrated by the fact that many cities have gone to great expense to provide themselves with parks. To give some idea of what cities comparable in population with what Dayton has now or may reasonable hope of have within a few decades, the following table is presented:

Comparative Statistics of American Cities

Name of City

Population in 1910

Area of City Acres

Area of Parks Acres

Population per acre of parks

Pct. Of park area to city area

Kansas City, Mo.

248,381

16,745

2055

120

12.3

Seattle, Wash.

237,194

38,249

640.3

371

1.7

Indianapolis, Ind.

233,650

20,067.1

1317.0

178

6.6

Providence, R.I.

224,326

11,699.2

644.4

348

5.5

Louisville, Ky.

223,928

15,647

1320.1

169

8.4

Rochester, N.Y.

218,149

12,252

1456.1

150

11.9

St. Paul, Minn.

214,744

33,483

1401.5

153

4.2

Denver, Colo.

213,381

37,348

1036.9

205

3.8

Portland, Ore.

207,214

28,136

276.6

749

0.98

Columbus, Ohio

181,548

10,176

195.8

927

1.9

Toledo, Ohio

168,497

16,450

924

182

1.5

Atlanta, Ga.

154,839

7,888

339

456

4.3

Oakland, Cal.

150,174

8,914

325.2

461

3.6

Worcester, Mass.

145,986

23,683

1072.1

136

4.5

Syracuse, N.Y.

137,605

10,843

291.7

471

2.7

New Haven, Ct.

133,249

11,460

1023.3

130

8.9

Birmingham, Ala.

132,685

4,274

229.6

579

5.3

Memphis, Tenn.

131,105

10,240

973.2

134

9.5

Scranton, Pa.

129,867

12,362

97.2

1336

0.8

Richmond, Va.

127,628

6,373

377.0

338

5.9

Paterson, N.J.

125,600

5,357

91.0

1381

1.7

Omaha, Neb.

124,096

15,380

613.2

202

4.0

Dayton, Ohio

116,577

7,213

19.6

5948

0.27

Fall River, Mass.

110,295

21,723

99.0

1114

0.47

Cambridge, Mass.

104,839

4,016.4

358

293

8.9

Bridgeport, Ct.

102,054

8,576

250.4

408

2.9

Albany, N.Y.

100,253

7,197

314.6

319

4.3

Hartford, Ct.

98,915

13,200

673.2

147

5.08

Trenton, N.J.

96,815

4,903

150.0

645

3.0

Lynn, Mass.

89,330

7,252.3

1060.8

84

15.3

Springfield, Mass.